CBP Initial Determination Malaysia Transshipping February 2022 | Page 14

number

entry summary lists [ ] m2 , rather than pieces .

¹⁰² The other entry documents list the same quantity as the commercial invoice – just in a different unit of measure ( i . e ., kgs ). ¹⁰³

In terms of payment information , Nomadic provided an explanation that [ ] forms of payment were made , including one to an intermediary [ ^person ] for USD [ for his work as an [ ^agent ] and one issued to [ ], but received by [ ], who is [ title number person

]. ¹⁰⁴ Nomadic claims that USD [ ] was included in the first payment to [ ]

number

for the covered merchandise and the second payment covered USD [ ] for the rest of the

number

covered merchandise , both of which total the value of this QSP order ( i . e ., USD [ ]).

¹⁰⁵ Nomadic did not , however , provide any other documentation generated in the course of ordinary number

business to substantiate the claim that part of the first payment ( i . e ., USD [ )] was for

person

payment of the covered merchandise or to confirm the fees charged by [ ]. As such , CBP is not able to directly tie each of the claimed payment details to the documents provided .

In sum , with respect to the production of QSP in Malaysia , Nomadic and Ever Stone did not answer many of the questions in the CF28 . The documentation provided did not tie information ( i . e ., raw materials or finished QSP ) to the exact amount of QSP covered under entry number [ number

] 8097 . With respect to entry information , Nomadic provided the documents requested , but CBP is unable to tie all of the documents Nomadic submitted ( i . e ., payment records ) to entry

number

[ ] 8097 . Therefore , CBP is unable to determine that the country of origin of the QSP entered by Nomadic was Malaysia .

Opaly

On November 10 , 2021 , CBP requested from Opaly information concerning entry number [ number date

] 8142 , entry date [ ].

¹⁰⁶ Opaly submitted a timely but partial response on December 10 , 2021 . ¹⁰⁷ As outlined below , Opaly ’ s response to the CF28 contains multiple discrepancies and is not complete . Therefore , TRLED is unable to rely on the information contained in the CF28 response to determine where the imported QSP was manufactured .

number

Opaly indicated the Malaysian supplier for entry [ ] 8142 is Ever Stone .

¹⁰⁸ As part of its CF28 response , Opaly provided certain information regarding the QSP production process . ¹⁰⁹ Specifically , it submitted seven photographs of what they allege are Ever Stone ’ s QSP production equipment , but there is no narrative description of the equipment , no confirmation that there are photographs of all of Ever Stone ’ s equipment , or any detailed explanation

102

Id .

103

Id .

104

Id . at 13 and Exhibit 17 . TRLED further notes that Nomadic provided the names and contact information for all forwarding agents , subcontractors , and intermediaries , as request by CBP .

105

Id .

106

See CF28 issued to Opaly , dated November 10 , 2021 ( Opaly ’ s CF28 Request ).

107

See Opaly ’ s CF-28 Response , dated December 10 , 2021 ( Opaly ’ s Response ).

108

Id .

109

Id .

14